Against my better judgment, I'm going to do this. This is an open response to the general "America is a corporate country, Bush is a Nazi, Patents are bad, music should be free for everybody, etc" rhetoric that is seen daily on the comments page here (rhetoric is not an inflammatory word, in fact, I'm about to write a bunch of my own rhetoric). To begin, and in fairness, I am a registered Republican, and I did indeed vote for Bush, and probably will again. I supported John McCain during his campaign monetarily, and was also a supporter of Rudy Gulianni during his Senate run. I have always supported the former mayor, even when others were accusing him of being a fascist, neo-Nazi, dictatorial mayor. Now, with that out of the way, you can either read the rest of the entry, or go ahead and click that little 'change relationship' button and mark me a foe.

To begin, Patents, Copyrights, Closed-source, non-free information, and all the like are not inherently bad things. They can be bad things, there are some examples of them being used as bad things, but don't let prejudices cloud your mind. There are many patents that serve the correct purpose, they protect the inventor (or controlling corporation) from things like corporate espionage. Patents are needed both in the mechanical and the digital realms. Again, I admit that there are some ridiculous patents, but that doesn't mean the entire patent office should just be disbanded and thrown out. Can the problem be solved? Sure, better training of patent clerks and more patent clerks would go a long way. But that is a large cost, where do you want to take that money from?

Copyrights and other ways of preventing the copying of information are needed. The RIAA/MPAA are both guilty of several moral atrocities, and of bending over backwards to destroy the lives of those accused of piracy. I do believe that they stepped way over the line in charging the RPI student for creating a search engine. But their acts do not make it legal, or ethical to copy music. If you believe that it is ethical to copy music, than don't do it as anonymous@freenet, do it with your name, with your address and everything else free to the public to see. When you get drug to court, inform the court that you will not pay whatever settlement is described. Raise a stink, show off to the media, go to jail screaming about the legal abuses of the RIAA and when you are released, do it all again. Civil Disobedience works, but only if you can convince the public that you really are being treated unfairly. Martin Luther King did not change a single law, the courts did that. He simply changed the public opinion of those laws.

The American government was created as, and still is a government for the people, by the people. Corporations are groups of people, stockholders, employees and the like. They wield enormous control in the same way that labor unions wield their power, because of the people backing them. How many people does Microsoft represent? Just the will of Bill and Steve? A few hundred direct investors? A few thousand employees? What about the millions of people whose retirement funds are invested in mutual funds containing Microsoft stock? Politicians vie for that power because it represents a) their job and b) their ability to better care for their constituents. Yes, politicians do care for constituents. However, the founding fathers created a government that would represent the view of the majority of the people the majority of the time. Nowhere does the constitution claim that all of the people will be happy all of the time, nor does it claim that a majority of the people will be happy all of the time. Don't believe Bush was a popularly elected president? Fine- name the last president that actually managed to achieve a majority vote? Believe that run off elections are a better idea? Take a look at the political situation of Russia and get back to me. The majority of the people simply don't care. That is a problem - apathy is never the solution. Is this a problem with the two party system? Maybe, but if you split the parties up further you end up with a small minority of the people being happy a majority of the time. Germany, Israel, and many other countries have this type of system. Perhaps it's better, I tend to think the political climates in these countries speak for themselves. A president elected by 10-12% of the people isn't likely to care for your cause at all.

So you don't like the current political climate- wait a few years, it will change. Don't like a particular law, wait a few years, if you aren't alone in your dislike- it will change. The beautiful thing about our system is that nothing is set in stone. Our government and our laws breathe, they flow in and out of existence. A hundred years ago, the Income Tax law was paraded as a great victory for the worker. Now we see more and more people claiming that the Income Tax is unfair towards the worker, yet the law itself has changed very little in the past fifty years or so. The worldview changes, and so must the governing body.

Ok, I think that I have presented this in a fairly nonpartisan way. But, as always, I'm open for discussion. I have tried to stay away from specifics for a reason- that is why comments are enabled.

Hey-

I know its been like a week or something. But I found something to complain about. Apparently some of the people protesting this war claim that we should be the ones invaded, because we have weapons of mass destruction. They also claim that by using depleted uranium ammo we are guilty of using WMD. Now, let us discuss for a moment.

1) Yes, we have WMD. In fact, we have more than any other country in the world. Of course, we legitamately engineered and manufactured these weapons, including all the research and development of them. This seperates us from Iraq and North Korea, who have largely purchased the secrets of these weapons. In fact, I'm convinced this is why we have not gone after Pakistan and India- they too largely developed their nuclear program on their own. Of course, this opens up the Isreal debate- but I really don't want to go there right now.

Another reason we are 'allowed' to have WMD is the fact that all of our WMD were developed inside UN chartres and we admit to and catalouge the existance of our weapons. Of course, the fact that the UN specifically banned Iraq from having WMD and has never levied such a resolution at us could have something to do with this...

2)Depleted Uranium is not a WMD. In fact, its about as radioactive as a smoke detector (which containes small amounts of Francium, which is much more radioactive than Uranium). Depleted Uranium is an isotope of Uranium that has low radiation and high density, it isn't going to explode. What it does do is put a hell of a lot of mass behind a small area. What it really does is rip through armor.

Anyway, feel free to comment!

Hi All

I would just like to take a break from the war to bring up something else that could be quite damaging to our society. It is getting on to spring now, and with temperatures reaching 60F today, people around here shed their parka's for some more comfortable clothing.

This brings me to my point. Buttprint pants should be illegal. You know, the pants with the "Go Team" written right across the rear? Now look, I am as big a fan of the buttprint pants as any man is. But, they are dangerous!

They are dangerous in several ways. Firstly, I'm walking along, and some girl with the words "_uke Roc__!" written on her ass steps in front of me. Suddendly, I'm not paying attention to where I'm walking anymore. Instead, I'm trying to figure out what those other letters are. But I cant, they've disappeared underneath her left cheek. Next thing I know, I run into a tree. All because this women uses her behind as a billboard.

And that isn't the worst that could happen! Let's say I'm reading this posteriour poster that she is wearing, and she notices! Now she thinks I'm leering at her. She turns around, and I'm busted. "It isn't my fault! Maybe a few days at the gym would tighten things up, make it easier to read."

So, as you can see, buttprint pants are a danger to us all. So please women, if you want to show your school spirit, do so in a safe, effective manner. Think of the rest of us.

As always, comments are welcome

I'm going to assume that most of you watched the Oscars. so I won't bother repeating what Micheal Moore said after he won an Oscar for his documentary, Bowling for Columbine. Suffice it to say, he was very derrogatory to the current administration and the war effort.

Now, I realize that celebs have as much of a right to free speach as the rest of us. However, it bothers me when I see people, like Mr. Moore, make comments that undermine our political system, our constitution, and the work of our troops. Actors/Directors/etc. have a large audience, which means that their voice carries a lot of weight.

Because they command attention, simply by being popular, they need to be incredibly careful with what they say. Misinformation is bad, misinformation presented to millions via live broadcast is devistating. Claiming that the current administration was 'falsely' elected is nothing more than an outright lie. Everyone with any sort of authority on the subject has said that the election, and the resultant controversy, was handled exactly how the constitution outlines. Simply because Mr. Moore disagree's with the results, or wanted someone else to win, does not mean President Bush in anyway cheated.

The problem is these celebraties seem to think that their popular status makes them experts on every possible subject. People have a responsibility to research their beliefs, and the more people you reach, the more research you need to do. Otherwise you may find yourself lying and causing severe damage.

Ok, rant off.

I just saw on the news that people in eastern Afghanistan are protesting the war in Iraq. I'm not exactly sure how this makes me feel. Here are people that, for decades, were unable to speak their minds. Now they are free to do it. How great is that?

Of course, they are able to speek freely because of American lives. So yes, it is frustrating to see them speak out against American actions. I think this is why there is such a large anti-France thing going on. America is often accused of being the big bully of the world. While it is true we do tend to use our superiority rather liberally, should that make us an object of hatred?

Like I said, I'm confused by how I feel over this. On one side, I think its a wonderful demonstration of the good that America has brought to that region. On the other, a little respect for us would be nice. Anyway, I don't want to sit here and talk all day- so why don't some of you make comments? Please... I wanna have friends.

Hey again all. I wanted to mention something I just heard that sorta ticked me off. I'm sure we all know about the huge oil fires burning over Baghdad right now. Seems the Iraqi military decided to that a smoke screen may keep the US from bombing the city. On the news I just saw a pentagon report that said (paraphrasing) 'The smoke from these oil fires could interfere with our precision guided munitions. By setting these fires the Iraqi military is increasing the potential of civilian casualties.' There are two problems with this statement.

1) The most obvious: The Iraqi military set these fires so we wouldn't be able to see our targets. They know we won't drop bombs if we can't identify what we are hitting.

2) This smoke screen will not affect current generation smart weapons in any way. Old smart weapons basically followed a laser in to the target. They were fairly accurate (within 100meters) but had 2 large problems. The first is that someone had to keep the laser on the target- which meant someone had to hang around to watch the explosion. The second, weather, or smoke could easily dissipate or refract the laser (think about putting your hand under water and how it seems to 'break').

So, in the best American way, we made our weapons smarter. Now we use GPS, a satelite system that uses radio transmission to 'tell' the weapon where it is. Knowing where it is, and where the target is, the weapon can make adjustments. These new weapons (JDAMs) are accurate within 2meters (thnk about that- I'm about 2m tall- that means they are accurate within a cubic me). However, the main advantage is that the satelite is the only thing that has to stay around, and, because it uses radio transmission (probably in the gHz range), weather and particle systems really don't effect it.

I'm not sure why the pentagon says that civillian casualties might increase. Perhaps we are getting some level of intelligence that civillian casualties are higher than we estimated? Perhaps its a propaganda ploy? Maybe we've found that Iraq is using human shields? I don't know. My guess is the second one. But, I was a bit disheartened when they announced that.

On a completely un related note, a few people (Ok, Julie) asked me where I was getting my news from. Well, mainly from your regular news outlets (cnn.com. Fox News, MSNBC). However, there are a few other sites I check that make for an interesting read.

• Where is Raed? Which is a most interesting blog run by an Iraqi man who lives in Baghdad. The last time he posted was 3/21/03, but I'm guessing he either doesn't have power now, or has more pressing concerns then to update his blog. Anyway, its a very interesting site.
• Blogs of War Which is basically just an easy place to go to get a summary of all the major news sites.
• Fark Which is just an interesting place to begin with. But it usually has some links to some of the more interesting headlines of the day.

Well, that is all for now. Expect more later.

Hey everyone. First, for those of you looking at this because you saw it in my profile- welcome to slashdot, News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters. I've actually belonged to this site for awhile, but I'm just now getting around to using some of the cooler features. Now, on to the promised rant.

Ok, I believe we all know where I stand on this war. If you have any doubts, I am in favor of this action. However, many people are not. Now, I, unlike many of my fellow conservatives, do not believe that protesters are a bunch of worthless hippies. In fact, when I see protests some patriotic part of me is stirred. I mean come on- this is what living in democracy is all about! However, I do wonder about the mentality of the protester (btw, anyone know the appropriate spelling of protester? protestor?- clue me in if you know).

For a moment, lets forget everything we might think we know about this war. Is it a war over oil? A war over WMD? A war to avenge a pissed of father? Well, I have my ideas, you have yours, but honestly, it just doesn't matter what it is 'about.' One thing that I believe we can all agree on is that when this war ends, we will all see a liberated, democratic Iraq. In fact, assuming we continue to keep the UN from getting involved (and specifically, the French), I'm guessing the new government will fairly closely model our own.

So this leaves the protester (keeping with that spelling, cause I like it, and Word is to far away to use to check) in the questionable position of protesting a war that will provide the right of protest to 22million people. I wonder how many of the protesters have thought of this?

Now, I know that the immediate response will be something to the effect of 'We can settle this without a war.' Ok, fine. What is your proposal then? Diplomacy? Saddam doesn't do diplomacy. Remember, right now hundreds of bombs are falling on his head, and his army is crumbling around him. Yet he refuses to speak to our government. Diplomacy will not work with this man. Weapons inspectors? Weapons inspectors may find WMD, but they won't be able to free the Iraqi people. Sanctions? 12 years, he hasn't budged.

So see, what I am looking for is this supposed alternative to war. War is horrible. It is terrible, awful and evil. It is nothing to joke about (though we do, but really it's a defense mechanism). But, at times, war is neccassary. The simple truth is nothing short of devistating, convincing (one might say shocking and awe-inspiring- but I'm really tired of hearing that) military action is going to liberate Iraq from Saddam. That is why I support war- freedom is worth the cost.

Comments are enabled, you can comment anonymously, but I would like to hear from you. Let me know your thoughts.

EDIT: Just thought that this was an interesting story in light of things.